What I'd like to ask supporters of an older hoax is this, who do you suppose wrote the diary?

Who could it possibly be that had "intimate knowledge" of the case and of Maybrick?

A servant? Is that likely?

Michael Maybrick? He'd surely have the writing skills needed to come up with a piece of fact-laced fiction, but why would he go to any trouble to make lies up about James after his death? Lies which would surely damage Micgael and his reputation, and sully his family name?

So who else? Florence's lover, in an attempt to make Florence's crime seem justified?

Fletcher Rogers, friend of James, who stood at the trial of Florence and immediately took up residence at Battlecrease?

At least with a modern forgery, we have ideas of who may have written it or thought it up.

At least with a modern forgery, we have ideas of who may have written it or thought it up.

And the potential inspiration to think it up in the first place, namely: the publicity around the Yorkshire Ripper case in the 1970s, with the Wearside Jack hoax thrown in for good measure; the Hitler Diaries affair of the early 1980s; and the JTR centenary - complete with books, movies and documentaries - in the late 1980s. There would also, presumably, have been the added local impetus of the centenary of the Maybrick case at about the same time. By the early 1990s, it seems that all the required ingredients were there.

And the potential inspiration to think it up in the first place, namely: the publicity around the Yorkshire Ripper case in the 1970s, with the Wearside Jack hoax thrown in for good measure; the Hitler Diaries affair of the early 1980s; and the JTR centenary - complete with books, movies and documentaries - in the late 1980s. There would also, presumably, have been the added local impetus of the centenary of the Maybrick case at about the same time. By the early 1990s, it seems that all the required ingredients were there.

I agree, Sam. There's also the fact that the Maybrick story had been rekindled locally during the late 80's/early 90's with the republishing of Whittington-Egan's work, with some of the chapters being circulated in weekly editions of local newspapers such as the Merseymart.

If we're going with an older hoax, we have to have some kind of idea of who wrote it, and for what reason. So far, I've seen no decent answers for those questions.

There are valid reasons to believe this is a more modern hoax, but as yet, I'm scratching my head looking for a similar number of valid reasons to either suggest an older hoax or the real deal.

There's that tumbleweed again!

Just out of interest Mike, what would you consider 'a valid reason?' Whatever doubts everyone has about the 'timeline' or anything else it's still 'proven' that electricians were working in Maybrick's room on the day Mike Barrett phoned about the diary. It's transparently not impossible that the diary 'could' have got to Barrett on that day. And the scientific tests all appear to favour an older date for the diary. Again Mr Devil's advocate here

By the way chaps I'm in London at the moment. Just been on a 'ripper' walk. They don't even bother going to Goulston Street anymore and Mitre Square is almost unrecognisable! The cobbles are gone and there's bloody grass in the middle!!

Just out of interest Mike, what would you consider 'a valid reason?' Whatever doubts everyone has about the 'timeline' or anything else it's still 'proven' that electricians were working in Maybrick's room on the day Mike Barrett phoned about the diary. It's transparently not impossible that the diary 'could' have got to Barrett on that day. And the scientific tests all appear to favour an older date for the diary. Again Mr Devil's advocate here

By the way chaps I'm in London at the moment. Just been on a 'ripper' walk. They don't even bother going to Goulston Street anymore and Mitre Square is almost unrecognisable! The cobbles are gone and there's bloody grass in the middle!!

Since Dodd has claimed that the diary wasn't seen there during earlier work, coupled with the fact that the electrician wasn't certain if the diary was found in 1989 or 1992, I'm not sure if the Battlecrease provenance is anything to hang our hats on, Herlock.

I'm not saying that the diary coming out of the house and ending up in Barrett's hands on the same day is impossible, but it's certainly not very probable, for reasons I've explained, and I'm asking those who support that version of events to explain how it was done.

It's silly for anyone to just say, well Rigby's mate took it at lunchtime into town, then they contacted Barrett at a pub, because we're getting back into the territory of making up random facts to account for odd inconsistencies.

You can have the book come out of the house and into the hands of Mr. T, if you wish to do so, but you'd have to show some logical reasoning to explain it away, and the same applies for this scenario being put forth regarding Rigby passing it to a mate, and that mate organizing a random meeting at a random building with a random bloke, and then randomly deciding to pass it over to Barrett, a man whom nobody seems to want to give any credence to most of the time, but in this scenario, he's obviously an important chap indeed!

I know that if I found a potentially important document that I felt had enough value to warrant a trip to the local random university, I'd follow that up by seeking out the local eccentric at the pub, he'd know what to do with it!

And the scientific tests all appear to favour an older date for the diary.

Do they, though? I'm not sure if they actually do. The Mussilini diary was also found to be suitably aged, and we know that it was done so by sticking it in the oven. Nothing about the Maybrick diary is even remotely proven with regards to its age, and people constantly forget that, or just choose to ignore it.

Do they, though? I'm not sure if they actually do. The Mussilini diary was also found to be suitably aged, and we know that it was done so by sticking it in the oven. Nothing about the Maybrick diary is even remotely proven with regards to its age, and people constantly forget that, or just choose to ignore it.

I'm in a hotel at the moment Mike so I have no books with me. I'm unsure how they could be scientifically 'proven' then. If every test that's been done to show the age can all be fooled by trickery what's left? Melvyn Harris for eg was keen to use science to disprove the diary. He failed (and it appears not very honestly either.) If science had disproved the diary I wonder if people on the anti side would have said 'this could be the result of trickery?' Or would hey have accepted it? Surely people can't ave it both ways?
To my mind it's bit like - Barrett announces the diary (liar.) - Barrett admits forging it (honest.) - Barrettt retracts forgery announcement (liar again.)

Since Dodd has claimed that the diary wasn't seen there during earlier work, coupled with the fact that the electrician wasn't certain if the diary was found in 1989 or 1992, I'm not sure if the Battlecrease provenance is anything to hang our hats on, Herlock.

I'm not saying that the diary coming out of the house and ending up in Barrett's hands on the same day is impossible, but it's certainly not very probable, for reasons I've explained, and I'm asking those who support that version of events to explain how it was done.

It's silly for anyone to just say, well Rigby's mate took it at lunchtime into town, then they contacted Barrett at a pub, because we're getting back into the territory of making up random facts to account for odd inconsistencies.

You can have the book come out of the house and into the hands of Mr. T, if you wish to do so, but you'd have to show some logical reasoning to explain it away, and the same applies for this scenario being put forth regarding Rigby passing it to a mate, and that mate organizing a random meeting at a random building with a random bloke, and then randomly deciding to pass it over to Barrett, a man whom nobody seems to want to give any credence to most of the time, but in this scenario, he's obviously an important chap indeed!

I know that if I found a potentially important document that I felt had enough value to warrant a trip to the local random university, I'd follow that up by seeking out the local eccentric at the pub, he'd know what to do with it!

Not.

They find the diary-get it checked at uni-someone takes it to Barrett because he's done a bit of writing and they think he might know who to approach to sell it-Barrett makes the phone call. I can't see anything impossible Or even improbable in that Mike. I'm not saying for a fact that it's true but it could be. Surely we can't discount something because we can't give a detailed itinerary of events?

I'm in a hotel at the moment Mike so I have no books with me. I'm unsure how they could be scientifically 'proven' then. If every test that's been done to show the age can all be fooled by trickery what's left? Melvyn Harris for eg was keen to use science to disprove the diary. He failed (and it appears not very honestly either.) If science had disproved the diary I wonder if people on the anti side would have said 'this could be the result of trickery?' Or would hey have accepted it? Surely people can't ave it both ways?
To my mind it's bit like - Barrett announces the diary (liar.) - Barrett admits forging it (honest.) - Barrettt retracts forgery announcement (liar again.)

It's a tricky one, which is the intent of a hoax in the first place, to deceive.

There would obviously be ways to prove that it was the real deal, but the simple fact is that nobody has yet done that to any great satisfaction.

There are conflicting views on the ink analysis for a reason.

Hoaxes are literally constructed to fool people, and this is what the diary has done, plain and simple. When you have a situation where no two people can agree on the age, then you look at the rest of it.

Here's my take: there are enough reasons to suggest hoax. There are enough reasons to suggest a more modern hoax.

Are there any reasons to suggest either a genuine article or an old hoax? People seem apprehensive about offering those reasons, if there are any.